Skip to main content

About your Search

20130129
20130129
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
a budget that indicates what the priorities are for the democrats in the united states senate, and maybe we'll agree on a bipartisan basis to a budget. in any event, we ought not to ignore the law any longer, and i think it's a good step in the direction of getting back to regular order which we ought to follow. it strikes me most of the time, unless there's a pretty strong reason not to do that. >> it's been 1,371 days since the democrats last moved a budget through the united states senate, and thanks to the pressure that was brought by house republicans in passing their no budget, no pay provision as part of the debt ceiling bill that's now come over to the senate, it looks like the senate according to senator murray will now take up a budget. this is important because while republicans believe that spending is the problem not a lack of taxation, it's going to be a revealing exercise to see how this budget markup goes in committee and then, of course, on the floor. and it will be, i'm sure, a challenge for those who believe that more revenue is a solution as opposed to reining in spendin
't know what his thinking was, but he has a bad habit of forgets there's a united states senate. the constitution says there are 1100 positions like secretary of state and member of the national labor relations board that require advise and consent of the senate. if you sent someone up here that the senators don't want to confirm, they can't be confirmed. i was that way, president bush the first sent my name up education senator 20 years ago and some democratic senators held me up three months and that's what the senate does. >> greta: a single republican could have held up the appointment. it's not that the senate is-- the senate majority is democrats, so, one single republican could have held up the-- >> no, not really. it's 40 republicans or if 40 senators can block an appointment. it takes 40. >> greta: okay, so he would have gotten-- wouldn't you expect his appointments to the nlrb in light of the fact there are so many democrats in the senate, that is the majority, that they would have gotten confirmed anyway? >> neighbor, but in these appointees said we think we can get r
rubio, the republican senator of florida, himself an immigrant from cuba to the united states. he's out there selling this comprehensive immigration reform legislation to some skeptics, including on the rush limbaugh show today. listen to this. >> i think there's this false argument that's been advanced by the left that conservatism and republicans are anti-immigrant and anti-immigration and we are not. never have been. we are pro-legal immigration and we recognize that our legal immigration system needs to be reformed. we also recognize, because conservatism has always been about commonsense, that we have an existing problem that has to be belt with in the best way possible. >> how important is rubio's role in getting this comprehensive legislation reform passed? >> i don't think you can overstate it, wolf. it's very, very important. here's someone with undeniable conservative credentials, a bona fide member of the tea party who is effectively trying to save, i would argue, save the republican party from itself on the question of immigration. is he somebody that can go on the rush limb
with the decision from the united states court of appeals, the d.c. circuit, which says that its appointments, president's appointments are unconstitutional in the pro forma recess. >> well, that's right. it said that the president made recess appointments at a time when the senate wasn't in recess. according to article 2, section 2 of the constitution, you can't do that. >> why did it take so long to be challenged? i think that has happened a number of times before. >> it has. but when the president did that, we talked about it in the senate. we republican senators that we could either blow up the senate and go out in the street and holler. we decided to use the system we have. so we hired an attorney to tyke the case to court and the judges unanimously ruled that the president exceeded his constitutional authority. it's an important one because this is the part of the constitution that says we don't want a tyrannical executive, that's why we have a country. i went to mt. vernon last year and our revolution was about restraining an imperial presidency, then a king. >> would the president not
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)